DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the at least one magnet of the flange” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, as written this limitation lacks antecedent basis as it appears to be referring to this limitation from claim 11: “at least one magnet is supported by the flange”. Claim 11 doesn’t require the magnet to actually be in the flange, just supported by it, which makes claim 12 unclear as it indicates the magnet is part of the flange. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the at least one magnet supported by the flange”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zelman (US 2006/0203188 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zelman teaches an eyeglass apparatus comprising:
an eyeglass frame that supports at least one lens, the frame comprising a first magnetic mount (See, e.g., primary lens frame 10 in Fig. 15a, here the first magnetic mount corresponds to magnetic members 37a-b);
an auxiliary component comprising a second magnetic mount and being removably attachable to the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., auxiliary lens frame 15 in Fig. 15a which is attachable/removable via the magnetic members 36a-b), the second magnetic mount (i) corresponding in placement to the first magnetic mount when the auxiliary component is magnetically coupled to the eyeglass frame in a first position and (ii) having an opposite magnetic pole to the first magnetic mount (See, e.g., Fig. 15a);
wherein the auxiliary component can be repositioned from the first position to be (i) magnetically coupled to the eyeglass frame in a second position that is pivoted from the first position and (ii) at least partially spaced apart from the at least one lens of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Fig. 16 which shows this configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the auxiliary component comprises a central bridge that is coupled to a respective bridge of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b), the first position being achieved when the auxiliary component is coupled to the eyeglass frame at the central bridge and the respective bridge and the auxiliary component is positioned adjacent to the at least one lens of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b).
Regarding claim 3, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second position is achieved when the auxiliary component is pivoted upwardly about the respective bridge of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 4, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first magnetic mount comprises at least one pair of magnets disposed along a central bridge of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Figs 15a-b).
Regarding claim 7, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second magnetic mount comprises at least one pair of magnets disposed along a central bridge of the auxiliary component (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second magnetic mount comprises a flange that extends outwardly from the central bridge of the auxiliary component (See, e.g., pivoting arms 34a-b in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least one magnet is supported by the flange of the auxiliary component (Note that insofar as the cited second magnetic mount has a cited flange physically connected to a magnet this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 12, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the auxiliary component comprises at least one magnet disposed along the central bridge, separate from the at least one magnet of the flange (Note in light of the 112 rejection above this limitation is met as one of magnetic members 36a-b can be considered to be the magnet supported by the flange and the other can be the magnet disposed along the central bridge).
Regarding claim 13, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the eyeglass frame comprises a central bridge having frame mating component (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b which shows both frames having a mating component on a bridge in the form of the magnets), and wherein the auxiliary component comprises a central bridge having an auxiliary mating component that is complementary to and compatible with the frame mating component to permit the auxiliary component to be magnetically coupled to the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b which shows both frames having a mating component on a bridge in the form of the magnets).
Regarding claim 14, Zelman teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the frame mating component comprises the first magnetic mount and the auxiliary mating component comprises the second magnetic mount (See, e.g., Figs. 15a-b).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starner et al. (US 2002/0089639 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Zelman teaches an eyeglass apparatus comprising:
an eyeglass frame having a pair of lenses mounted therein (See, e.g., frame 30 in Fig. 1a)
an auxiliary component selectively attachable to the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., auxiliary lenses 20 in Fig. 1a);
a first set of magnetic mounts affixed to the eyeglass frame and comprising at least four magnet mounts for each lens of the eyeglass frame (See, e.g., magnets 40 in Fig. 1a); and
a second set of magnetic mounts affixed to outer edges of the auxiliary component, wherein each of the second set of magnetic mounts (i) corresponds in placement to a respective one of the first set of magnetic mounts and (ii) has an opposite magnetic pole to the respective one of the first set of magnetic mounts (See, e.g., magnets 50 in Fig. 1a and paragraph [0025] which explains this).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelman (US 2006/0203188 A1) in view of Starner et al. (US 2002/0089639 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zelman teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the eyeglass frame comprises an electrical contact that can be electrically connected with an electrical contact of the auxiliary component when the auxiliary component is coupled to the eyeglass frame for permitting electrical communication between the eyeglass frame and the auxiliary component.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Starner teaches the use of an eyeglass frame with an electrical contact that pairs with an auxiliary component having a matching electrical contact for electrical communication (See, e.g., Fig 1b and paragraph [0028] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zelman to have an electrical component on each frame that allows for electrical communication when the frames are attached, as taught by Starner, for the purpose of giving the device more utility as it would be able to have more functions than purely optical.
Regarding claim 18, Zelman teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the eyeglass frame comprises electrical circuitry connected to an LCD panel with a backlight and display component or a mirror capable of at least one of reflecting or splitting images generated on the LCD panel for directing them into the eye of the user.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Starner teaches an eyeglass frame with electrical circuitry connected to an LCD with a backlight and display for directing to a user’s eye (See, e.g., paragraph [0027] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zelman to have electrical circuitry connected to an LCD with a backlight and display, as taught by Starner, for the purpose of giving the device more utility as it would be able to have more functions than purely optical.
Regarding claim 19, Zelman teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure of a sensor for activating or deactivating a display system and a battery cell that powers the display system via a magnetic on/off switch.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Starner teaches a sensor for activating or deactivating a display system and a battery cell that powers the display system via a magnetic on/off switch (See, e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zelman to have a sensor for activating or deactivating a display system and a battery cell that powers the display system via a magnetic on/off switch, as taught by Starner, for the purpose of giving the device more utility as it would be able to have more functions than purely optical.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelman (US 2006/0203188 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2014/0253867 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zelman teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the eyeglass frame comprises at least one of a microphone or a speaker.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jiang teaches the use of an eyeglass frame having a speaker (See, e.g., paragraph [0013] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zelman to have a speaker integrated therein, as taught by Jiang, for the purpose of giving the device more utility as it would be able to have more functions than purely optical.
Regarding claim 17, Zelman teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the eyeglass frame comprises a processor configured for internet connectivity.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Jiang teaches the use of an eyeglass frame having a processor configured for internet connectivity (See, e.g., paragraph [0013] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zelman to have a processor to connect to the internet, as taught by Jiang, for the purpose of giving the device more utility as it would be able to have more functions than purely optical.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach a second pair of magnets that are disposed along a second surface of the central bridge, the first surface being oriented at an angle relative to the second surface.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach a second pair of magnets that are disposed along a second surface of the central bridge, the first surface being oriented at an angle relative to the second surface.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights